Appeal No. 2003-1570
Application 08/748,986
The examiner turns to Bayer to overcome the failure of Rudak
to meet the limitations in independent claims 17, 22 and 25
requiring the operation of at least one of the hoisting
mechanisms to be adjusted based on a processor routine operating
in response the sensed relative amount by which the ropes are
taken up. For the reasons specified above, however, Bayer falls
short in this regard.
Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claims 17, 22 and 25, and dependent
claims 18, 19, 23, 24, 26 through 28 and 30 through 38, as being
unpatentable over Rudak in view of Bayer.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 17 through 19
and 22 through 38 is reversed.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007